Effect of Communication Skills Training Using the Calgary-Cambridge Model on Interviewing Skills among Midwifery Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An effective interview can strengthen the clinician-patient relationship and improve treatment outcomes. We aimed to assess the effect of communication skills training using the Calgary-Cambridge model on interviewing skills among midwifery students. Materials and Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 30 midwifery students of Golestan University of Medical Sciences were selected using the convenience sampling method and randomly assigned through minimization into the intervention ( n = 15) and control ( n = 15) groups in 2018. The routine interventions were administered for the control group, and four sessions of communication skills training based on the Calgary-Cambridge model was performed in small groups for the intervention group. Evan and colleague's History-taking Rating Scale was used before and four weeks after the intervention. Data were analyzed using paired and independent-sample t and Mann-Whitney U tests at the significance level of less than 0.05. Results: The mean (SD) scores of interviewing skill before and after the intervention was 33.71 (7.34) and 54.50 (8.16), respectively, in the intervention group (t 13 = 9.26, p < 0.001) and 33.64 (6.02) and 33.93 (5.39) in the control group, respectively ( p = 0.85). The difference between the two groups was significant (t 26 = 7.86, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Communication skills training based on the Calgary-Cambridge model can be used as an effective method to improve interviewing skills among midwifery students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".